Delap v. Dugger’s Empirical Analysis
890 F.2d 285 · 1989
Citation profile
61 federal appellate · 2 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 116 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably 8 Cal. 4th 903 - People v. Santamaria (1994), United States v. Starrett (1995)
61 federal appellate · 2 district · 18 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California · Blockburger v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) that the prosecution suppressed evidence (2) that was favorable to him or exulpatory and (3) that the evidence was material.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Our examination of the circumstances convinces us that the evidence concerning Brumley’s involvement in drug smuggling activities was not material under the Bagley test. Delap argues that exposure of Brumley’s illegal activities to the jury would have cast substantial doubt on his credibility. First of all, as the district court noted, it is highly questionable whether the evidence would have been admissible under Florida law. Brumley had not been charged nor convicted of any crime during De-lap’s first or second trials. Brumley was not indicted until late 1981, well after Delap’s October 1978 second trial. Therefore, his illegal activities would not be admissible as a prior criminal conviction under Fla.Stat. § 90.610. See Rolle v. State, 386 So.2d 3 (1980) (general rule is that witness may not be interrogated as to prior arrests or pending charges, but only as to prior convictions). Nor is it likely that the evidence would be admissible under Fla.Stat. § 90.608 as evidence of bias in this case, where no criminal proceeding or even an investigation had begun.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.